Subscribe to our mailing list
Shown below are prison population graphs from Corrections NZ showing daily prison muster numbers, taken from pages such as the December 2015 summary. My OIA Request 429890 seeks to obtain very fine-grained database access to the full set of Corrections anonymised database tables for the past 10 years, including one-way salted hashes of prisoners CRI/CRN numbers to provide protection for privacy respect to the privacy act), including columns or fields for “gang” / religion / tattoos or whatever you have, I will be able to plot on a daily chart the numbers similar to how Corrections has itself done on the website.
To illustrate I have collected a series of graphs taken from the December summary pages…
2008 to 2011:
2010 to 2013:
2011 to 2014:
2013 to 2015:
2014 to 2018 (predicted):
By my calculations the NZ justice system consumes 3,248,500 prisoner nights per year! At a cost of $90,936 per prisoner per year and $900 million / year for corrections. And yet 16% are put there for the “crime” of altering their minds. Freedom of Thought Now! The Rastafari should be able to burn incense just like a catholic priest burns his incense. Anything less is a fundamental christian dictatorship using “smell” as evidence when you can’t take a photo of an aroma https://www.legalise.org.nz/synod/
I assume with 10 years of data, 10,000 prisoners and another 10,000 on EM curfew, the data should use about 200,000 – 1,000,000 rows of database or similar assuming an average conviction rate of 75% and between 1 and 5 charges per judgement.
Figures need to also show EM curfews like home detention and community detention as well as prison time.
It is an open secret that ISIL, ISIS, Al Qaueda or القاعدة use cash sourced from Heroine crops in Afghanistan, and in 1991 USA killed over 3,000 innocent civilians in Panama city via a single bomb blast to an apartment block over cocaine.
The ironically named Operation Just Cause was the exact opposite of justified. It blows my mind to think that whomever came up with that disgusting name for a military operation didn’t consider the irony of the injustice of it.
The United States Invasion of Panama, code-named Operation Just Cause, was the invasion of Panama by the US between mid-December 1989 and late-January 1990. It occurred during the administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the United States to Panama by 1 January 2000. wikipedia.org/US_invasion_of_Panama
Noam Chompsky had points out how the US Attorney-General has blocked the evidence proving the “Target Practice” conspiracy theory (this was practice for Desert Storm, only a few months away) this to say which shows the terrifying control over NYT:
Central American sources continued to give considerable attention to the impact of the invasion on civilians, but they were ignored in the occasional reviews of the matter here. New York Times correspondent Larry Rohter devoted a column to casualty estimates on April 1, citing figures as high as 673 killed, and adding that higher figures, which he attributes only to Ramsey Clark, are “widely rejected” in Panama. He found Panamanian witnesses who described U.S. military actions as restrained, but none with less happy tales. zcomm.org/…chomsky…dd-c05-s11 … The Mexican press reported that two Catholic Bishops estimated deaths at perhaps 3000. Hospitals and nongovernmental human rights groups estimated deaths at over 2000. … Eyewitnesses interviewed in the urban slums report that U.S. helicopters aimed their fire at buildings with only civilian occupants, that a U.S. tank destroyed a public bus killing 26 passengers, that civilian residences were burned to the ground with many apartments destroyed and many killed, that U.S. troops shot at ambulances and killed wounded, some with bayonets, and denied access to the Red Cross. … The Spanish language press in the United States was less celebratory than its colleagues. Vicky Pelaez reports from Panama that “the entire world continues in ignorance about how the thousands of victims of the North american invasion of Panama died and what kinds of weapons were used, because the Attorney-General of the country refuses to permit investigation of the bodies buried in the common graves.” An accompanying photo shows workmen exhuming corpses from a grave containing “almost 200 victims of the invasion.” Quoting a woman who found the body of her murdered father, Pelaez reports that “just like the woman at the cemetery, it is `vox populi’ in Panama that the North americans used completely unknown armaments during the 20 December invasion.”
1 Spanish journalist killed
Source: Jamie Han 2013 blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/2013/05/opium-farming-in-afghanistan/
According to the Herald:
The Catanian Mafia in turn works closely with the Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta, an international criminal network whose mastery of the cocaine market means it has a turnover of £44 billion, greater than McDonald’s and Deutsche Bank combined.
The investigators’ principal concern is that the weapons may fall into the hands of extremists. “The Egyptian citizen was previously arrested in Italy for belonging to an organisation dedicated to human trafficking in the Med. We’ve been investigating possible connections with terrorist organisations,” a carabinieri source said.
Organised criminals are increasingly open to trading with extremists, complicating the battle against terrorism.
Ballistics experts are aware that petty criminals and drug dealers usually require small pistols they can conceal, while terrorists want assault weapons to inflict maximum damage.
In 1533, King Henry VIII decreed that all landholders set aside one-quarter acre for the cultivation of hemp for every sixty acres of land that they tilled, in order to provide the necessary fibre required by the nation. This was to satisfy the increased demand for rope and sailcloth for King Henry’s VIII new navy.
In 1563 Queen Elizabeth I reintroduced the law to expand her navy and she added a £5 fine for any eligible landlord who failed to comply. From then on the demand increased and the hemp industry became a very important industry to the British economy. They had to improve the supply of this strategic raw material when in the 1630s the British sped up their colonisation of the new world.
1. Deitch, Robert (2003) Hemp: American history revisited: the plant with a divided history. page 12. Algora Publishing. Accessed 2010-01-16.
Research and text © Hempshopper Amsterdam.
This Bill enables the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police to require community-based offenders and bailees, if they are subject to conditions prohibiting the use of drugs and alcohol, to undergo drug and alcohol testing to ensure compliance with these conditions.
(Formerly Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill)
(Formerly part of Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill)
|Member in charge:||Hon Amy Adams|
|Type of bill:||Government|
|Act:||Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2015 (15/106)|
It’s a nice idea but has some issues, mostly the maximum (or is it minimum? That I could understand!) THC content limit which is shocking and arbitrary and non-scientific, and the fact we’d still have a black market for un-licensed bud, and no way to purchase whole-product medical buds (except pre-ground and pre-rolled or by growing it yourself). On the positive side it would be fantastic to have absolutely any movement at all on the subject, and by the sounds of it would create a centralised place to buy and sell government approved cannabis products. In effect, a government registry would be fantastic since you would have literally thousands of products to choose from eventually – if I understand it properly.
This from Chris Fowlie at hempstore:
“Under Wilkin’s proposed model the government does not grow the cannabis, it licenses production just like with hemp to a variety of producers – some may be indoor, some may be outdoor, or organic, the idea is there would be a variety of cannabis producers making a variety of products. And by “cannabis products” he means cannabis with some form of processing – so it can be distinguished from black market cannabis – e.g. ready rolled joints with logos, balms, tinctures, pre-ground buds for vaping, basically anything except unprocessed bud. Most tobacco smokers do not insist on unprocessed tobacco leaves, they are happy to purchase “tobacco products”, so other than “fuck the government” purists who think anything except “no rules” will be a disaster, I think most cannabis users would be very well served by this model – and if they want more, or insist on smoking bud, they can grow their own, or register as medical users. There is no model that will make 100% of the people 100% happy, but this goes a long way to keeping most people mostly happy (including traditional opponents like police, etc), which is what we will need to bring about law reform.“
This from Wilkins’ page at Massey
“Approved cannabis products would have a limit to the amount of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol – the principal psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) allowed, and a required minimum level of CBD (cannabidiol – the non-psychoactive ingredient, known for its medicinal benefits).
They would only be produced and sold by the government, ensuring a high price to restrict demand and generating tax revenue to support treatment counselling, health services and enforcement. “The Government will be the only producer and the only seller, and that’s a means to keep the price high and also collect tax.”“
I may have stirred a hornets nest… but I just made a complaint to the serious fraud office about discrepancies in the reporting of proceeds of crime forfeitures. Namely that how come over a ten year period they take $3.8M out of Whangarei, but $0 out of Napier, New Plymouth, Invercargill, and Hamilton? Either the cops are stealing all the cash from drug dealers…. or….. there is no illegal cash in those cities? This line of rationale goes that for a prohibition to work, they need to lock up every one of the 400,000 regular pot smokers and jail or execute them (recidivists need to be kept away from society). Hardened lifetime criminals are not people to be considerate to and rehabilitate – this is what preventative detention is about. Permanent removal from society. Richard Nixon is who we were trying to please when we passed that terrible law in 1975. Richard Nixon was anti-Jew and wanted them all locked up. If you are curious about the log of proceeds complaint see: https://www.legalise.org.nz/log-proceeds-crime-criminal-pr…/
Excerpts from a fantastic thesis by Randy E. Barnett that shares the same title as this post.
Some drugs make people feel good. That is why some people use them. Some of these drugs are alleged to have side effects so destructive that many advise against their use. The same may be said about statutes that attempt to prohibit the manufacture, sale, and use of drugs. Advocating drug prohibition makes some people feel good because they think they are “doing something” about what they believe to be a serious social problem. Others who support these laws are not so altruistically motivated. Employees of law enforcement bureaus and academics who receive government grants to study drug use, for example, may gain financially from drug prohibition. But as with using drugs, using drug laws can have moral and practical side effects so destructive that they argue against ever using legal institutions in this manner.
One might even say—and not altogether metaphorically—that some people become psychologically or economically addicted to drug laws.1 That is, some people continue to support these statutes despite the massive and unavoidable ill effects that result. The psychologically addicted ignore these harms so that they can attain the “good”—their “high”—they perceive that drug laws produce. Other drug-law users ignore the costs of prohibition because of their “economic” dependence on drug laws; these people profit financially from drug laws and are unwilling to undergo the economic “withdrawal” that would be caused by their repeal.
Both kinds of drug-law addicts may deny their addiction by asserting that the side effects are not really so terrible or that they can be kept “under control.” The economically dependent drug-law users may also deny their addiction by asserting that (1) noble motivations, rather than economic gain, lead them to support these statutes; (2) they are not unwilling to withstand the painful financial readjustment that ending prohibition would force them to undergo; and (3) they can “quit” their support any time they want to—provided, of course, that they are rationally convinced of its wrongness.
Their denials notwithstanding, both kinds of addicts are detectable by their adamant resistance to rational persuasion. While they eagerly await and devour any new evidence of the destructiveness of drug use, they are almost completely uninterested in any practical or theoretical knowledge of the ill effects of criminalising such conduct.4 Yet in a free society governed by democratic principles, these addicts cannot be compelled to give up their desire to control the consumption patterns of others. Nor can they be forced to support legalisation in spite of their desires. In a democratic system, they may voice and vote their opinions about such matters no matter how destructive the consequences of their desires are to themselves or, more importantly, to others. Only rational persuasion may be employed to wean them from this habit. As part of this process of persuasion, drug-law addicts must be exposed to the destruction their addiction wreaks on drug users, law enforcement, and on the general public. They must be made to understand the inherent limits of using law to accomplish social objectives.
Later we get this nice summary:
We can conclude then that the end or purpose of drug laws is to discourage people from engaging in risky activity in which they wish to engage either because they desire the intoxicating effects they associate with the consumption of a drug or because they desire the profit that can be realised by supplying intoxicating drugs to others.15 The means that drug laws employ to accomplish this end is using force against those who would engage in such activities, either to prevent them from doing so or to punish those who nonetheless succeed in doing so.
But what about those who are not discouraged and who engage in such conduct anyway? Does the practice of punishing these persons make life better or worse for them? The answer is clear. As harmful as using drugs may be to someone, being imprisoned often makes matters much worse.
Normally when considering matters of legality, we are not concerned about whether a law punishes a lawbreaker and makes him worse off. Indeed, normally such punishment is deliberately imposed on the lawbreaker to protect someone else who we consider to be completely innocent—like the victim, or potential victim, of a rape, robbery, or murder.21 We are therefore quite willing to harm the lawbreaker to protect the innocent. In other words, the objects of these laws are the victims; the subjects of these laws are the criminal.
Drug laws are different in this respect from many other criminal laws. With drug prohibition we are supposed to be concerned with the well-being of prospective drug users. So the object of drug laws—the persons whom drug laws are supposed to “protect”—are often the same persons who are the subject of drug laws. Whenever the object of a law is also its subject, however, a problem arises. The means chosen for benefiting prospective drug users seriously harms those who still use drugs and does so in ways that drugs alone cannot: by punishing drug users over and above the harmful effects of drug use. But the harm done by drug prohibition to drug users goes beyond the direct effects of punishment.
Higher prices can also make drug use more hazardous for users. Intravenous injection, for example, is more popular in countries where high drug prices caused by prohibition drive users to the most “efficient” means of ingesting the drug. In countries where opiates are legal, the principal methods of consumption are inhaling the fumes of heated drugs or snorting. Before the Harrison Act of 1914, “when opiates were cheap and plentiful, they were very rarely injected. Moreover, injection is rare in those Asian countries where opiates are inexpensive and easily available.” While physical dependence may result from either inhalation or snorting, neither is as likely as intravenous injections to result in an overdose. And consumption by injection can cause other health problems as well. For example: “Heroin use causes hepatitis only if injected, and causes collapsed veins and embolisms only if injected intravenously.” Finally, the scourge of HIV-AIDS has been caused, in part, by the sharing of unsterilised needles by drug users.
The following basically embodies the concept of “The prohibition is the gateway not cannabis”.
People who still wish to use drugs are forced to do business with the kind of people who are willing to make and sell drugs in spite of the risk of punishment. Such transactions must deliberately be conducted away from the police. This puts drug users in great danger of physical harm in two ways.
Second, users are likely to be the victims of crime. I would estimate that approximately half the murder cases I prosecuted as an Assistant States Attorney in Cook County, Illinois were “drug related” in the sense that the victim was killed because it was thought he had either drugs or money from the sale of drugs. Crimes are also committed against persons who seek out criminals from whom to purchase prohibited drugs. Because drug users and dealers want to avoid the police, crimes against these groups are unlikely to be reported. As a result, these crimes are likely brought to the attention of the authorities only when a victim’s body is found.
In 1979, I obtained the confessions that were ultimately used in a prosecution involving the savage murder of three young men. 34 One of the three had approached four members of the Latin Kings to purchase marijuana. When his initial attempt to do business with the gang members was rebuffed, he mistakenly believed that this was due to a lack of trust—rather than a lack of marijuana, which was the case. To ingratiate himself with the gang members, he boasted (falsely) about his gang-affiliated friends and his gang membership. Unfortunately the persons he named were members of a rival street gang, the Latin Eagles. The gang members then told him that they could supply marijuana after all and asked the three to accompany them to an alley. There they were held at gun point and eventually stabbed to death. These young men were not members of any street gang. These are drug-law-related deaths. Three young men are dead because drug laws prevented them from buying marijuana cigarettes as safely as they could buy tobacco cigarettes. While smoking either kind of cigarette may have been hazardous to their health, that issue is now moot. Where and how are their deaths registered in the cost-benefit calculation of drug-law advocates?
If you would like to get more involved in the fight to legalise cannabis, signup to the CAN or Cannabis Advocacy Network discussion list.
This is a special email list that when you reply to it, it goes to all the recipients so the members can have a group conversation.
You will need to set a password unlike the Blogletter bulk mail:
Join the C.A.N. Private Discussion List
This is a private list, which means that the list of members is not available to non-members; approval is required by the administrators.